https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27677
--- Comment #2 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-04-16 05:05:07 PDT ---
This is more or less what I had in mind, but:
* I don't like the method name recover() - it sounds like it ought to mean "try
to recover [something] [from something] and return true on success" rather than
just being an accessor. Could it be hasRecover() or willRecover() or something?
* Could the old (filter) constructor be implemented as a call to the new
(filter, bool) constructor? Do C++ constructors work like that?
AbstractClientObserver::AbstractClientObserver(... filter)
: AbstractClientObserver(filter, false)
{}
AbstractClientObserver::AbstractClientObserver(... filter, bool recover)
: mPriv(new Private)
{
mPriv->channelFilter = channelFilter;
mPriv->recover = recover;
}
(If that doesn't work in C++, then never mind.)
* It'd be nice to have a convention for noting "what we'll do when we break
ABI" - perhaps a comment containing "ABI-break"? - and mark these two
constructors as "// ABI-break: combine (filter, bool) and (filter) constructors
into (filter, bool=false)", or something
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.